But nobody said so, to the best of my knowledge. How come? Similar patterns of verses have been quoted by the scholars as abrogation.

It is obvious to me that this case, like cases with a similar pattern, do not have a conflict to resolve nor does one change the other. Verse 27:65 speaks of the total knowledge of the Beyond, which only God has, while verses 72:26-27 speak of the partial knowledge of some aspects of the Beyond which God may grant to some of His approved messengers. Two different concerns.

which alters the amount of time the Prophet (PBUH) is instructed to stand in prayer from most of the night to about half of it?

An abrogation claim here would have been quickly dismissed, and rightly so, because the specification of half can be thought of as a partial apposition noun (بدل البعض من الكل) or as one of the allowed options. Yet, verses of similar pattern have been claimed abrogated but not this one.

Why didn't any abrogationist claim that 73:1-2 were abrogated by the next verse 73:3 which alters the amount of time the Prophet (PBUH) is instructed to stand in prayer from most of the night to about half of it?

An abrogation claim here would have been quickly dismissed, and rightly so, because the specification of half can be thought of as a partial apposition noun (بدل البعض من الكل) or as one of the allowed options. Yet, verses of similar pattern have been claimed abrogated but not this one.

Nice!

It seems that the algorithm for claiming abrogation starts from a 'basis', a narration of some kind, then synthesizes an argument about conflict. In the absence of a narration, the argument would be the opposite, explaining away the conflict. This means that the abrogation claim is really about the narration, not about the conflict.

Another abrogation claim which should have been made but never was, to the best of my knowledge, is that the sword verse,

was abrogated by the refuge verse, the very next verse!

Here you have a direct order from God to the Prophet (PBUH) to deliver a polytheist, who sought refuge with him, to a safe haven. That precludes killing him, doesn't it?

And of course an abrogation case cannot be made here. The entire discussion and debate about the sword verse should have taken all fifteen verses, 9:1-15, together to get the point. Instead, people extracted 9:5 alone and jumped to monumental conclusions from it. It would be understandable if Islamophobes did that, but what is the excuse of devout Muslims?

Interesting wording in this verse that I didn't pay attention to before, "Then deliver him to his place of safety." It seems to me (and I concede that this may be a superficial impression on my part) that the idea is that non-believers were no longer allowed in the Haram area and that the crux of the first few verses of chapter 9 was to fight those who insist on their disbelief and refuse to leave the Haram area. This verse confirms that narrow scope by asking the Prophet (PBUH) to relocate a disbelieving person who wants out to a place of safety for him, outside the Haram area.

Abrogationists have mentioned that 3:85 abrogated 2:62, but they never discussed 5:69! If we follow the same logic they followed, we will have to conclude that the abrogation of 2:62 by 3:85 was itself abrogated by 5:69 which confirms 2:62 almost word for word!

This verse,

was claimed abrogated by

which should have been claimed abrogated still by

Yet, there is nothing in the literature I read so far that even touches 5:69 from afar when discussing the 3:85/2:62 abrogation case.

Obviously, there is no cause for claiming abrogation in any of the three verses and that all three verses are valid. 2:62 and 5:69 confirm each other, apply to people who died before the Quran was revealed, and define what God means by Islam in 3:85.

If we use the kinds of arguments that pro-abrogation scholars have used, we might wonder why nobody claimed that

was abrogated by the next verse,

It wasn't of course because each verse talks about a different thing even though they look like they are talking about the same thing. Verse 4:78 says that the source of everything is God. Of course. There is no other source. The keyword in the verse is عند. Verse 4:79, on the other hand, says that the cause of good things is God, as a reward for the good people do and as manifestation of His grace, while the cause of bad things is people's sin.

Such claim of course would be without merit, but claims with less merit and similar arguments have been made.

Why is this claim without merit? Because 33:36 prohibits rebellion but does not preclude pleading, which the hadeeth and 40:60 encourage a Muslim to do. Thus all three texts are consistent with each other and no abrogation claim need be made. I'm glad none were.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum